I was a developer on WinFS. It turns out to be hard to have a performant system that also has transactional commits between something changing a regular file, a

I was a developer on WinFS. It turns out to be hard to have a performant system that also has transactional commits between something changing a regular file, and a change in a database. It was also stupid to write OS components in .net, when it would just crash if it ran out of memory, among many other problems. Many people working on it wrote reports about how this was infeasible or impractical, yet they just said keep going, it will be all right. I think we could have built something that worked well enough, but they grew cowardly after the general failure of the entire longhorn project. Don't try to change the compiler, the language, the os, the office application to use same "in motion" components, plus the database. It's probably little known outside of Microsoft, but they tried to build many different higher end object filesystems, including JAWS (Jim Alchin Windows Filesystem), and others I can't even remember.